SHORT NOTE Psychological empowerment, job ...

Hechanova et al.

Asian Journal of Social Psychology (2006), 9, 72–78

DOI: 10.1111/j.1367-2223.2006.00177.x

SHORT NOTE Psychological empowerment, job satisfaction and performance among Filipino service workers Ma. Regina M. Hechanova,1 Ramon Benedicto A. Alampay2 and Edna P. Franco1 1

Department of Psychology, Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, 2Asian Institute of Tourism, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines

The present study surveyed 954 employees and their supervisors to determine the relationship of empowerment with job satisfaction and performance in five different service sectors: hotels, food service, banking, call centers, and airlines. Psychological empowerment was positively correlated with both job satisfaction and performance. Although intrinsic motivation was associated with higher levels of empowerment and job satisfaction, contrary to hypothesis, intrinsic motivation did not moderate the relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction and performance. Men reported greater empowerment than women even when job level and performance were controlled for. Cross-industry analyses indicated differences in empowerment across different types of service sectors with employees in call centers reporting less empowerment compared to employees in hotel, airlines, food establishments, and banks. Key words: empowerment, Filipino, job satisfaction, performance, service.

Introduction Employee empowerment sounds, on its face, like a concept that should logically be married to service operations. Employees are the core ingredients of service products. Because minimal time separates the production of the service from its delivery, the idea of providing workers the flexibility, latitude, and ability to meet customer service demands as they arise is intuitively appealing. Thus, it is not surprising that more and more service organizations are embracing employee empowerment programs (Enz & Siguaw, 2000; Taborda, 2000). However, as more organizations pursue this course, there seems to be an assumption that empowerment is an endstate to which all companies should aspire. Given the amount of time and money invested in employee empowerment programs, perhaps it is timely to ask whether this premise is valid. Is psychological empowerment related to employee satisfaction and performance? If so, is the impact of empowerment contingent on the nature of the organization and the individual? The present study looks into the relationship of empowerment on satisfaction and performance and the factors that may influence such relationships.

Correspondence: Ma. Regina M. Hechanova, Department of Psychology, Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines. Email: [email protected]

Empowerment Empowerment may be viewed in two ways. One approach is to look at empowerment as actions taken by organizations to share power and decision-making. Bowen and Lawler (1995) defined empowerment as sharing four organizational ingredients with frontline employees: (i) information about the organization’s performance; (ii) rewards based on the organization’s performance; (iii) knowledge about contributing to organizational performance; and (iv) the power to make decisions that influence the organization’s direction and performance. Such sharing can be done on three basic levels. The simplest level involves ‘suggestion empowerment’, or granting employees the power to recommend. A step higher would be ‘job involvement’ wherein employees are given greater discretion in how they do their work. Finally, in ‘high involvement’ mode of empowerment, mechanisms like employee ownership, as well as various schemes allow employees to directly participate in the management of their work units. Another approach looks at empowerment from a psychological perspective. In this approach, empowerment is viewed as the perception or attitudes of individuals towards their work and their role in the organization (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Thomas and Velthouse (1990) describe empowerment as manifested in a set of four cognitions about workers’ orientation to work role: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. That is, psychological empowerment involves workers’ beliefs about the meaning of their work, their capability to do their job well, their sense of self-determination and their autonomy in

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2006

73

Empowerment among service workers

influencing work outcomes. Spreitzer (1995) explains that these four cognitions additively create the psychological empowerment construct (i.e. the lack of a psychological empowerment construct deflates but does not completely eliminate, the overall degree of felt empowerment). These two perspectives are related in that empowerment actions taken by organizations aspire to create jobs and work environments that facilitate psychological empowerment among their members. In turn, there is evidence that psychologically empowered employees feel better about their jobs and themselves. A study of South Korean hotel employees found that Spreitzer’s (1995) four empowerment factors significantly predicted job satisfaction (Jun & Lee, 2000). In a study of nurses in the south-eastern USA, Fuller et al. (1999) also found that psychological empowerment moderated (i.e. enhanced) the relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction. In addition, Geralis and Terziovski’s (2003) study on Australian banks revealed that empowerment practices, when simultaneously implemented, are associated with greater employee well-being, productivity, performance, and service quality. Empowerment and the Filipino worker Considering the lack of research on employee empowerment in Philippine organizations, the present study examined the extent to which the outcomes of psychological empowerment, reported in the literature, also held true for the Philippines. Empowerment programs implicitly assume that subordinates should be involved in decision-making and that they desire greater responsibility. Empowerment programs also require that leaders are comfortable with sharing power. These assumptions may not be valid in some cultures. For example, a study revealed that empowerment went against the culture of authoritarianism, antiindividualism, and hierarchies in Russian organizations (Bryson, 1999). The mix of Eastern and Western influences in the Philippines can be cited as a case both for and against the use of empowerment. On one hand, the Philippine culture has been described as a collectivist society that emphasizes group, rather than individual, accountability (Hofstede, 1991). Collectivist cultures value traits such as humility, deference, dependence, obedience, conformity, and traditionalism (Grimm et al., 1999). These traits are incongruent with the traits expected of an empowered individual − assertiveness, independence, initiative, and directness. Hofstede (1991) also found Filipino culture to be characterized by high power distance. That is, less powerful members of organizations expect and accept power to be distributed unequally. Again, this runs counter to the value for sharing of authority required by employee empowerment programs.

However, having been colonized by the USA for almost half a century (from 1898 to 1946) the Filipinos’ conception of political, social, and business organizations has been significantly affected by American influences. Jocano (1999) explains that American management and industrial psychology theories and practices are the basis for how most Filipino organizations are run. He attributes this to the Westernized management education in the Philippines that emphasizes objectivity, impersonality, and organization. More importantly, Western empowerment technologies such as quality circles and labor management councils have been implemented in Philippines organizations since the 1980s. In addition, empowerment has become quite a salient concept in the Philippine political milieu. Filipinos have replaced national leaders through so-called ‘people power’ movements twice in the past 15 years. Although extreme, these expressions of political assertion suggest that empowerment as a mechanism for direct participation and powersharing is a concept that resonates with Filipinos. Thus, we predict that psychological empowerment would be correlated with both job satisfaction and performance (Hypothesis 1). In addition to examining the relationship of psychological empowerment and its outcomes, this study probed into other factors that may influence level of empowerment. Specifically, we looked at both individual characteristics (motivation and gender) as well as the nature of the industry. Motivation and empowerment The impetus for empowering employee resonates with classic motivation theories that cite employee participation as a key motivator. Indeed, some theorists even view empowerment as increased intrinsic task motivation manifested in a set of four cognitions about workers’ orientation to work role: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) Job Characteristics Model describes five core job characteristics that lead to worker motivation, satisfaction, and performance: (i) task identity, or the degree to which one can do one’s work from beginning to end; (ii) task significance, or the degree to which one’s work is seen as important and significant; (iii) skill variety, or the extent to which the job allows employees to do different tasks; (iv) autonomy, or the degree to which employees have control and discretion regarding the conduct of their jobs; and (v) feedback, or the degree to which the work itself provides feedback on how the employee is performing. In support of this, a meta-analytical review of the literature indicates a moderate correlation between job characteristics and job satisfaction (Fried & Ferris, 1987).


74

However, Hackman and Oldham also explain that the ability of these job characteristics to satisfy and motivate employees is dependent on an individual’s growth needs. That is, these job characteristics will work best with individuals who like being given greater responsibility and challenge. Consequently, employees who are intrinsically motivated tend to gravitate towards work environments that support intrinsic motivation, whereas extrinsically motivated employees tend to gravitate towards work environments that support extrinsic motivation (Amabile et al., 1994). Given this, we hypothesized that the relationship of psychological empowerment with job satisfaction and performance will be stronger for those with greater intrinsic motivation (Hypothesis 2). Gender and empowerment Despite the progress made by women in the workplace, disparities still exist. The International Labor Organization (ILO) reports that although women represent over 40% of the global workforce, they comprise only 20% of management positions. Surveys show that in the largest and most powerful companies worldwide, women comprise only 3% of top positions. In addition, women in management also appear to be relegated to non-strategic career paths (such as administration) rather than in line functions that lead to the top. Not surprisingly, some studies show that women tend to feel less empowered than men because they typically assume less powerful positions in organizations (Koberg et al., 1999). Gender inequality likewise exists in the Philippines. In the labor force, males continue to outnumber females even if the population rates are almost the same for both genders. The rate of unemployment has always been higher for female workers than for male workers (Illo, 1997). The latest data from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also show that only 5% of CEOs in the Top 500 Philippine corporations are women (SEC, 2003). A study on gender discrimination revealed that women managers report being excluded from informal networks, and have difficulty in finding mentors. Male managers also report that they are given more responsibilities than women in the same position (Lim & Hechanova, 2005). We thus hypothesized that male front-liners would report greater psychological empowerment than female front-liners even when job level and performance are controlled for (Hypothesis 3). Nature of service sector and empowerment Although empowerment is being embraced by a variety of organizations and industries, Bowen and Lawler (1992, 1995) proposed that the nature of operations would determine the degree to which service organizations empower their employees. Specifically, they suggested that business

Ma. Regina M. Hechanova et al.

strategies of service organizations could be described in terms of the degree to which they balance consistency and efficiency in service delivery (the production-line approach) with personalization or customization of the service as a differentiating strategy (the relationship-oriented approach). Companies that take the production-line approach emphasize standardization and consistency. Empowerment initiatives at these firms will focus more on soliciting suggestions from employees and generally improving the lines of communication between employees and management. In contrast, relationship-oriented organizations are geared towards the cultivation of customer relationships. Such businesses will benefit more from promoting greater employee involvement in determining how they do their jobs, as well as in how the service organization is run. Differences in relationship-orientation exist even among service industries. Hotel front-liners, for example, are encouraged to freely interact on a more personal level with guests, especially frequent or repeat visitors. In contrast, other service sectors may be described as being more production-oriented; for example, customer contact centers or call centers. Although call center front-liners do have personal contact with clients, the conversations tend to follow set scripts designed more for quick problem resolution than for building personal relationships. Given such differences, we expect that the level of psychological empowerment would be higher in service industries that are relationship rather than production-oriented (Hypothesis 4).

Method Sample A total of 954 employees participated in this study. These employees represented 10 organizations from five service sectors in the Philippines. The respondents were distributed by service sectors as follows: 28% hotels, 10% call center, 24% banking, 10% food, and 28% airline. Convenience sampling was used in identifying participating organizations. Once organizations agreed to participate, the surveys were sent out to all their front-liners through the Human Resource Manager who facilitated the distribution of surveys. Front-liners were identified as positions wherein personal interaction with clients was a necessary component of each of their jobs. To match employee responses with supervisor ratings of performance, respondents were asked to write down their names. However, to ensure confidentiality, they were given sealed envelopes which were collected by the researchers. Response rate was around 30% which is typical of surveys in the Philippines. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 51 years with an average of 27 years. The majority had at least a college


75


education (86%). The number of years on the job ranged from less than a year to 25 years with an average of 3.2 years. The majority were rank and file employees (81%). Reflective of gender distribution in this country’s service industry, females outnumbered males by a 2:1 ratio.

Motivation was measured using the Work Preference Inventory (WPI) by Amabile et al. (1994). The questionnaire measured the extent to which respondents are intrinsically or extrinsically motivated towards their work. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with 30 statements on a four-point scale (4 − always true, 3 − often true, 2 − sometimes true, 1 − never true). A score for intrinsic and extrinsic motivation was obtained for each individual. The respondent’s score for extrinsic motivation was subtracted from their intrinsic motivation score. The higher the score, the more intrinsically motivated the respondent. Internal consistency reliability using the sample was α = 0.79. Performance was measured by asking the supervisors of the respondents to rank all their subordinates in terms of effectiveness, with 1 as the most effective performer, 2 as the next most effective performer, and so on. Participants in the bottom third were classified as low performers (performance = 1), whereas participants were classified as high performers (performance = 2).

Measures Job satisfaction was measured using the short form of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (University of Minnesota, Vocational Psychological Research, 1967). The 20item scale asked respondents to indicate how they felt about different aspects of their present job such as ‘being able to keep busy all the time’, ‘the chance to do things for other people’ etc. Respondents were asked to rate each item on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied), 2 (dissatisfied), 3 (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied), 4 (satisfied), and 5 (very satisfied). Internal consistency reliability of the scale was α = 0.91. Psychological empowerment was measured using a 12item scale developed by Spreitzer (1995). The scale was composed of four subscales: meaning, competence, selfdetermination, and impact. Each scale had three items each. Sample items were ‘The work I do is very important to me’ (Meaning), ‘I am confident about my ability to do my job’ (Competence), ‘I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job’ (Self-determination), and ‘My impact on what happens in my department is large’ (Impact). Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement on each item on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Internal consistency reliability of the entire scale was α = 87. Subscale internal consistency reliabilities were α = 0.86 for meaning, α = 77 for competence, α = 0.79 for self-determination, and α = 0.79 for impact. Based on Spreitzer’s (1995) explanation that these four subfacets additively create the psychological empowerment, the subscale scores were averaged to obtain a total score for psychological empowerment. A higher score indicated greater perceived empowerment.

Results Psychological empowerment, job satisfaction and performance We found support for our hypothesis that empowerment would be significantly correlated to both job satisfaction and performance. Results showed a moderate correlation between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction (r = 0.50, p < 0.05) with empowerment explaining 28% of the variance in satisfaction (Table 1). The relationship of psychological empowerment with performance was also significant, albeit quite weak (r = 0.12, p < 0.05) explaining 1% of the variance in performance. Motivation as moderator Hypothesis 2 was not confirmed. The hypothesis had predicted that motivation would moderate the relationship of

Table 1 Correlational analysis

Gender Intrinsic motivation Empowerment Job satisfaction Performance

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

1.64 2.99 4.16 3.97 1.57

0.48 0.43 0.42 0.46 0.50

– 0.08 −0.09** −0.05 0.00

920 – 0.23** 0.21** 0.02

927 944 – 0.50** 0.12**

923 940 948 – 0.08

525 527 526 527 –

Lower diagonal indicates Pearson correlations; Upper diagonal reports n for pairwise correlation analysis. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (one-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (one-tailed). © Blackwell Publishing Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2006

76


psychological empowerment with satisfaction and performance. Intrinsic motivation was positively correlated with both empowerment (r = 0.23, p < 0.05) and job satisfaction (r = 0.21, p < 0.05). However, hierarchical regression analysis revealed that the interaction of psychological empowerment and motivation did not account for any significant amount of variance in either satisfaction or performance. Gender and empowerment We found a significant association between gender and job level (χ2 = 6.89, p < 0.01). Even though female front-liners outnumbered men 2 : 1, there was a greater percentage of supervisors among males (45%) than among females (34%). There was also a significant association between job level and performance (χ2 = 4.2, p < 0.05), with a greater percentage of supervisors rated as high performers. Because of this, we tested Hypothesis 3 via Analysis of Covariance (ANOVA) using job level and performance as control variables. We found support for the hypothesis that males would report greater psychological empowerment than females even when controlling for job level and job performance (F = 4.93, p < 0.05). As seen in Table 2, the gender differences appear to be in terms of two facets of

Table 2 Means (standard deviation) by gender for empowerment and its subscales

Meaning Competence Impact Self-determination Psychological empowerment

empowerment: competence and meaning. Men felt more competent and reported more meaning in their work than women even when job level and performance were controlled for. Difference in psychological empowerment by type of service sector The mean scores and standard deviations for psychological empowerment (combining all four factors) were computed for each industry sample (Table 3). One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to determine if there were significant differences in the mean ratings for psychological empowerment between service sectors when job level and performance were controlled for. The results of the ANCOVA confirmed that differences did exist between service sectors (F = 4.81, p < 0.01). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that psychological empowerment was highest in the banking, food, and hotel sectors, and lowest among airlines and call centers. Looking at subscale scores, the differences in empowerment appear to lie in the elements of meaning and impact. Call centers and airline front-liners reported the lowest scores for impact on their organizations and meaningfulness of their jobs. There were no differences in terms of the level of competence and self-determination across the service organizations.

Discussion

Females (n = 567)

Males (n = 318)

F

4.39 (0.61) 4.32 (0.43) 3.72 (0.59) 3.98 (0.62) 4.12 (0.46)

4.47 (0.53) 4.43 (0.47) 3.84 (0.61) 4.03 (0.68) 4.22 (0.46)

6.18* 4.05* 1.71 0.62 4.90*

*F controlling for job level and job performance is significant at 0.05.

The analysis of empowerment and job satisfaction affirmed previous findings in the literature that empowerment is associated with positive outcomes. Although the relationship between psychological empowerment and job satisfaction was robust, the relationship of empowerment and performance was weak,although still significant. This is understandable given that performance is determined by many other factors (e.g. supervisor-worker relations, degree

Table 3 Means (standard deviation) by industry for empowerment and its subscales

Meaning Competence Impact Self-determination Psychological empowerment

Food (n = 94)

Bank (n = 231)

Hotel (n = 266)

Airline (n = 271)

Call center (n = 91)

4.52 (0.50) 4.45 (0.43) 3.98 (0.59) 3.85 (0.80) 4.19 (0.43)

4.50 (0.51) 4.39 (0.47) 3.90 (0.61) 4.10 (0.54) 4.22 (0.40)

4.45 (0.60) 4.33 (0.56) 3.87 (0.71) 4.01 (0.65) 4.18 (0.45)

4.36 (0.59) 4.36 (0.52) 3.55 (0.72) 4.00 (0.61) 4.08 (0.43)

4.14 (0.62) 4.28 (0.53) 3.50 (0.78) 3.86 (0.71) 3.96 (0.45)

Posthoc results of significant differences were found for the following: Meaning: Hotel, Bank, Food, Airline > Call center. Impact: Hotel, Bank, Food > Airline, Call center. Self-determination: Bank > Food. Psychological empowerment: Hotel, Bank, Food > Call center; Bank > Airline. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2006


of supervision) outside the control of worker, supervisory style, personality of the rater, etc. Thus, empowerment is just one of the many determinants of performance. Another possible explanation for the weak relationship was the measurement of performance. Because the study sampled various industries, finding a common metric for performance was difficult. The general measure was chosen because it would apply across the various industries. Another approach would have been to create specific performance measures by sector. Although more difficult, this may have elicited more sensitive measures of performance. Results do not support the moderating effect of motivation on empowerment, job satisfaction and performance. Rather, there appears to be a direct relationship between intrinsic motivation and empowerment. This is not surprising because empowerment leads to increased autonomy, which is also an element of intrinsic motivation. In fact, Thomas and Velthouse (1990) view intrinsic motivation as essentially concerned with positively valued experiences derived directly from a given task. Such valued experience can be a product of increased autonomy and challenge in one’s job. The results support gender differences in empowerment even when job level and performance are controlled for. Particularly, men report greater confidence in their abilities as well as more meaning in their work. This is consistent with previous findings of subtle forms of discrimination in Philippine organizations. In Lim and Hechanova’s study (2005), they found that women managers report difficulty in finding mentors and being excluded from informal networks. Male managers also reported that they were given more responsibilities than women in the same position. Thus, it is possible that our male front-liners reported greater confidence in their abilities and meaning in their work because they were given more opportunities for development and responsibilities than their female counterparts. This suggests that organizations who wish to empower their employees must be sensitive to the aspects of organizational culture that can reinforce gender inequity. We also found significant differences in the level of empowerment across service sectors. Respondents in call centers and airlines reported the lowest levels of empowerment whereas bank and hotel front-liners reported significantly higher levels of empowerment and job satisfaction. These results may reflect differences in the nature of the respective businesses. More specifically, the organizations vary in terms of how they locate the employee–client interaction within the framework of business strategy. Hotels and banks typically view the nurturing of long-term relationships with guests and clients as central to their business strategies. Thus, they can use empowerment to enable their front-line staff to customize the service and go beyond what the standard procedures promise. In doing so, the companies hope that the personalized service encourages positive

77

word-of-mouth and repeat business from satisfied customers. In contrast, business strategies and industry practices may constrain airline flight crew from straying too far from standard operating procedures. Contemporary airline economics often dictate strict control of in-flight costs. Thus, flight attendants are drilled to follow strict procedures for dispensing food, beverage and other in-flight amenities. Another possible reason for airlines to adhere to in-flight procedures would be to limit their exposure to civil suits and other liabilities. Concerns about safety, security, perceptions of discrimination and other issues have forced airlines to develop standard protocols for dealing with a wide range of situations that can occur en route. However, these results should not be taken to mean that airline passenger service is production oriented. Nor do they show that airlines do not seek to cultivate customer relationships. Airline in-flight staff are probably as customer oriented as hotel and bank front-liners. Rather, the airline situation illustrates the trade-offs that service organizations are often forced to make between customization (facilitated by empowerment) and efficiency. The results from the food sector illustrate the multidimensional character of empowerment. Among all industry groups, the restaurant sample recorded the highest scores for meaning, competence and impact. However, it also scored lowest in self-determination. This reflects the fact that our respondents worked for fast food operations. Thus, their interaction with customers may largely be scripted and standardized, owing to the operation’s emphasis on production and efficiency. Similarly, call centers appear to be the most production oriented among the service sectors. This orientation puts an emphasis on speed and volume of transactions. Thus, there is little incentive for relationship building, at least on the part of the caller and the customer service representative. Rather, prepared responses and scripts quickly guide the customer through the system, thus allowing for quick resolution of calls. However Bowen and Lawler (1995) suggest production orientation need not be a constraint on empowerment programs. Such an orientation merely suggests that the organization may focus on the dimensions of empowerment which more easily complement a standardized work environment: meaningfulness, competence, and opportunities. On the whole the variations found across service sectors suggest empowerment works in different ways for different service settings. This implies that empowerment should not be viewed as a magical solution for suddenly transforming front-line staff into exemplary service providers. Rather, empowerment can be seen as a ‘less-to-more’ continuum rather than as an ‘either-or’ proposition. Service organizations should also recognize the multifaceted character of empowerment. In crafting their empowerment programs to fit their respective organizations, managers should look at how each of the four empowerment factors − meaning,


78

competence, impact, and self-determination − is compatible with the organizational strategy. The research has surfaced other areas for future inquiry. For example, the present study only focused on two possible outcomes of empowerment. It is likely that empowerment will affect other outcomes as well. Research on the relationship of empowerment to organizational commitment, turnover intent, organizational citizenship etc. may further explain empowerment’s impact on organizations. In addition, a comparison of empowerment levels among similar organizations may reveal if empowerment does affect organizational or group performance. This study also looked at empowerment from a psychological perspective of employees. It did not look at the specific empowerment initiatives or programs of the organizations. Given the link between empowerment and employee outcomes, additional questions come to mind. How do organizations empower their employees? Empowerment can be manifested in several ways from granting employees the power to make recommendations to directly involving them in organization management. Identifying the various empowerment mechanisms, as well as evaluating what initiatives work best would be worth investigating in the future.

References Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessy, B. A. & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 950–967. Bowen, D. & Lawler, E. (1992). The empowerment of service workers: What, why, how, when? Sloan Management Review, 33, 31–39. Bowen, D. & Lawler, E. (1995). Empowering service employees. Sloan Management Review, 36, 73–84. Bryson, A. (1999). The impact of employee involvement on small firms’ financial performance. National Institute Economic Review, 169, 78–95. Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471–482. Enz, C. & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Best practices in human resources. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administrative Quarterly, Feb, 48–61. Fried, Y. & Ferris, G. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322.


Fuller, J. B., Morrison, R. & Jones, L. (1999). The effects of psychological empowerment on transformational leadership and job satisfaction. Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 389– 391. Geralis, M. & Terziovski, M. (2003). A quantitative analysis of the relationship between empowerment practices and service quality. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 14, 45–62. Grimm, S. D., Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S. & Reyes, J. S. (1999). Self-described traits, and moods associated with individualism and collectivism: Testing I-C theory in an individualistic (U.S) and a collectivistic (Philippine) culture. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 30, 466–500. Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279. Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and Organization: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill Company. Illo, J. F. (1997). Women in the Philippines. Asian Development Bank Jocano, F.L. (1999). Towards developing a Filipino corporate culture. Uses of Filipino traditional structures and values in modern management.Quezon City, Philippines: Punlad Research House, Inc. Jocano, F. L. (1999). Towards developing a Filipino corporate culture: Uses of Filipino traditional structures and values in modern management. Quezon City, Philippines: Punlad Research House, Inc. Jun, J. K. & Lee, C. W. (2000). A study of psychological empowerment of hotel employees in South Korea. In: Proceedings from the 6th Asia Pacific Tourism Association (APTA) Conference. Phuket, Thailand: Prince of Songkla University. Koberg, C., Boss, R., Senjem, J. & Goodman, E. (1999). Antecedents and outcomes of empowerment. Group and Organization Management, 24, 71–91. Lim, A. R. L. & Hechanova, M. R. (2005). Dissecting the glass ceiling: Leadership stereotypes and gender discrimination as perceived by Filipino managers. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 38, 75–96. Security and Exchange Commission (SEC). (2003). Philippines Top 5000 Corporations. Philippines. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465. Taborda, C. G. (2000). Leadership, teamwork, and empowerment: Future management trends. Cost Engineering, 42, 41–44. Thomas, K. W. & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment. An interpretive model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666–681. University of Minnesota, Vocational Psychological Research. (1967). Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire as cited in M.T. Aamodt (ed). Applied Industrial/Organizational Psychology, 3rd edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
